DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER Vs. UNNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above batch of writ petitions, the only point that arise for consideration is: Whether the second respondent-appellate authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has the power to restore the appeals dismissed for non prosecution by the appellant before it?

(2.) The first respondent in each of the writ petition is the workman, the third respondent is the Controlling Authority and the second respondent is the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The writ petitioner is the employer. The first respondent in each of the writ petition moved the third respondent for a direction to pay gratuity, while claiming that he is a workman employed by the petitioner-Railways. The said claim of the workman for direction to pay gratuity was resisted by the writ petitioner-Railways contending that the first respondent is not a workman engaged by the Railways, but he was engaged by the Contractor. Despite objections, the third respondent Controlling Authority, while condoning the delay in moving the application by order dated 30.11.1994 directed the petitioner/Railway Administration to pay Gratuity with simple interest at 10% per annum within thirty days of the receipt of the order under Section 7(3)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent directing the petitioner/Railways to pay various sums towards gratuity, the petitioner/Railways herein preferred an appeal before the second respondent who is the appellate authority raising number of contentions including the contention that claim is not maintainable, that the claim is barred by limitation and that there is no relationship of employer and employee. The Writ petitioner/Railways preferred appeal before the second respondent. The appeals were dismissed for non appearance on different dates. It has been specifically recorded that the writ petitioner/appellant has failed to appear on dates of hearing either through its representative or counsel and failed to take part in the hearing. As even after few adjournments the petitioner failed to extend

(3.) The necessary cooperation, the second respondent by separate proceedings passed in each of the appeal dismissed the appeals for non prosecution on 30.5.1999. Being aggrieved the present batch of writ petitions have been filed. Few of the writ petitions have already been dismissed for non prosecution with which we are not concerned.